**2.4. Comparative analysis of the plants**

**2.1. Selection of the sample to the multicase (characterization of the plants)**

convenience, expert knowledge, etc., to select the elements of the sample.

to deal with the volume and complexity of the data obtained.

because this certification has been looked for sugarcane-ethanol plants.

similarities and heterogeneity between the cases.

not agree; 4—Partially agree; and 5—Totally agree.

European Union Directive 28/2009 are.

**2.3. Data collection**

**2.2. Elaboration of the main questionnaire**

plants to compose the multicase study.

34 Sugarcane - Technology and Research

As in Ref. [29], the type of sampling performed can be characterized as nonprobabilistic and subjective. Hair Junior et al. [30] explain that in nonprobabilistic sampling, the selection of elements for the sample is not necessarily done in order to be statistically representative of the population. Instead, the researcher can use subjective methods, such as personal experience,

Within this context, the data collected within a primary questionnaire were organized into groups according to similarities of information, and from these groups were selected four

Eisenhardt [31] states that there is no ideal number of cases, but working with 4–10 cases is a good choice and works well. According to the same author, with less than four cases, it is difficult to generate a theory with great complexity, and with more than 10 cases, it is difficult

In addition, meetings were held with experts in the area, the environmental manager, and the executive director of the Association of the Sugarcane Industries of Minas Gerais, SIAMIG, to assist in the determination of the ethanol plants that have participated in the multicase study. The groups formed and the previously selected sample were presented to them to confirm the

The questionnaire was prepared based on the criteria required by the Bonsucro certification

It contained open and closed questions, being the closed questions in the form of affirmations, that the interviewee should evaluate whether or not he agreed and how much he agreed or disagreed with each statement. Response options were organized on an unstructured, fivepoint scale, ranging from 1 to 5. In the beginning of the questionnaire, what each value represented was explained : 1—Strongly disagree, 2—Partially disagree; 3—I do not disagree, I do

The content of this questionnaire was also discussed with the environmental manager of

In this stage of data collection, the information was obtained through primary data, which refers to the survey research method. A personal interview with the agricultural, industrial, environmental, and administrative managers of the selected plants was carried out. As this multicase study consisted of a small sample, the survey was considered a good procedure for data collection. During the interview, it was explained to the interviewees that they should interpret the statements and choose the answer that best represented the vision and practice of the plant. At no point was explained what sustainability is and what the requirements of Bonsucro and

SIAMIG, to verify the adequacy of the indicators used and, thus, to validate the same.

The data analyzed were presented in the descriptive form, characteristic of the qualitative research, and in graphs [32]. The data of each case were first treated separately, carrying out a detailed description of each case, using the information collected with the questionnaires.

In this part, information obtained on the fulfillment of Bonsucro criteria was presented in a form of radar-type graphics. To obtain these graphs, the answers were separated by criteria (set of indicators), and for each, the percentage of attendance was calculated.

The next step was to perform the comparative case analysis. Each point on the unstructured scale of the main questionnaire corresponded to an index, and each index indicates a level of sustainability, as follows: Fully disagree: 1: Critical; Partially disagree: 2: Alert; Do not disagree or agree: 3: Reasonable; Partially agree: 4: Acceptable; Fully agree: 5: Ideal. With this information, the comparative analysis was carried out.

In this way, it is possible to identify the indicators that are or not met by the plants, and the level of attendance to these indicators. In addition to the mills, the environment manager of SIAMIG, an expert in the area and knowledgeable of all the plants, was also interviewed to obtain an external view of the plant and to compare and verify whether the responses of these mills match or not with reality. He was given the same instructions as the mills. The identity of the cases had to be revealed to the specialist so that he could answer the questions according to what he knows about each one.
